Base food labeling on fact and not fear

“The scientific evidence on genetically engineered food, which has been around for two decades, indicates that it is as safe for human consumption as any other food,” the Los Angeles Times Editorial Board writes. “A California bill that would require the labeling of bioengineered food — whose DNA has been modified in the laboratory to introduce certain traits — caters to a scare campaign that is not based on solid evidence.”

7 Responses

The problem with the discussion of GMOs is that Monsanto has so heavily dominated the industry that it’s almost impossible to discuss GMOs without also discussing Monsanto.

Monsanto’s business practices are obnoxious, probably dangerous and more than a little unethical, but that doesn’t mean that GMOs are inherently bad. We need to find a way to separate this one obnoxious company from the overall discussion.

I went out and read the referenced article then the proposed referenced legislation and would have to say that the article mischaracterizes the legislation and indicates that the author doesn’t have a very good grasp of the issues involved. For example, the author states in the first paragraph –

“The scientific evidence on genetically engineered food, which has been around for two decades, indicates that it is as safe for human consumption as any other food. A California bill that would require the labeling of bioengineered food — whose DNA has been modified in the laboratory to introduce certain traits — caters to a scare campaign that is not based on solid evidence.”
This statement is factually incorrect. Most, not all, the scientific evidence indicates that food that contains products PRODUCED from GMO’s has a low correlation with most types of tested negative effects. The food itself is not bioengineered, its the GMO that was bioengineered, and there are virtually no good scientific studies that can rule out possible long-term negative effects from eating these foods. NONE!

The line of reasoning in the referenced article, poor as it is, might have legitimacy for some issues, but not for this one. The producers of GMOs are monkeying around with the very essence of life and it’s prudent and wise for people to have a heightened caution about this. Requiring companies to label these products isn’t really that onerous considering the potential problems these products might directly and indirectly cause.

The author also states that “If a consumer has personal concerns about genetically modified food, there are other ways to avoid it.” So?!! Most people are busy enough as it is and don’t really have the time to research every topic like this. It’s perfectly legitimate for the people to require food companies to label their products as the people see fit.

The referenced article also takes a “don’t take a look behind that curtain” mentality to all the other potential harms relating to the creation of GMOs. This legislation is a good piece of legislation and New York should get its own version.

“Most, not all, the scientific evidence indicates that food that contains products PRODUCED from GMO’s has a low correlation with most types of tested negative effects. The food itself is not bioengineered, its the GMO that was bioengineered, and there are virtually no good scientific studies that can rule out possible long-term negative effects from eating these foods. NONE!”

Dio, sorry for being dense, but I have read this a few times and do not understand it at all. What is the distinction you are drawing?

@Elmer,
A GMO is a “Genetically Modified Organism”. It’s the whole organism like an entire sugar beet plant or chicken. A food relating to these organisms would be sugar(sucrose) or a chicken breast. The sugar produced from the genetically engineered sugar beet plant is not what’s been genetically engineered, it’s the plant, and in fact the sugar would be chemically identical to normal table sugar. This may sound like nit picking, but it’s not, and it’s clear to me that the people who wrote the referenced article didn’t understand the difference and obviously didn’t vet the editorial with somebody who did. It’s pretty clear to me that they also didn’t understand what sorts of testing really should be occurring with at least some of these foods. The “scientific evidence” supporting the contention that this food is all safe consists of studies that researched whether or no there have been any proven harm done by these foods. That really isn’t adequate. That’s a longitudinal expos facto study which is the crudest and least reliable research design. The writers of the article would have found that out if they had vetted the article with somebody qualified. For example, there have been some plants(broccoli for example) that have been genetically engineered to produced vastly larger quantities of a naturally occurring pesticides so as to be pest resistant and requiring less use of expensive artificial pesticides. There have been no tests on plants like this, and there would be no possible way to prove that a cancer caused at age 50 was caused by heavy consumption of this type of broccoli at age 40. Plants like this really should be tested in the same way as artificial pesticides. This whole issue is very complex and it’s clear to me that the drafters of the proposed legislation either didn’t understand all the issues and didn’t consult closely with people who did. The writers of the editorial have disgraced them selves by not vetting their article on such an important issue with somebody unbiased who actually understood all the issues.

My last few sentences aren’t what I meant. They should read “…but it’s clear to me the drafters of the proposed legislation either understand all the major issues or consulted closely with people who did. The writers of the editorial, in contrast, clearly didn’t understand the issues and have disgraced them selves by not vetting their article on such an important issue with somebody unbiased who actually did.

I will freely admit to knowing less than you about “naturally occurring pesticides” but isn’t it likely they would (generalization coming) be less harmful than artificial ones?

At most it seems you are saying that some subset of GMO’s should bear greater scrutiny e.g. your broccoli, which may well be true. But it doesn’t change the fact that there is no purpose to requiring all food be labelled which is “produced from an organism or organisms in which the genetic material has been changed…” as the bill called for.